Individuals: Breach of duty of employer towards employees and non-employees/ Breach of duty of self-employed to others/ Breach of duty of employees at work/ Breach of Health and Safety regulations/ Secondary liability
Triable either way
Maximum: when tried on indictment: unlimited fine and/or 2 years’ custody when tried summarily: unlimited fine and/or 6 months’ custody
Offence range: Conditional discharge – 2 years’ custody
In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all organisations and offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after 1 February 2016, regardless of the date of the offence. Section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that when sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010: “Every court – (b) must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” For individuals, this guideline applies only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of youths are in the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guideline, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths. Structure, ranges and starting points For the purposes of section 125(3)–(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the guideline specifies offence ranges – the range of sentences appropriate for each type of offence. Within each offence, the Council has specified a number of categories which reflect varying degrees of seriousness. The offence range is split into category ranges – sentences appropriate for each level of seriousness. The Council has also identified a starting point within each category. Starting points define the position within a category range from which to start calculating the provisional sentence. The court should consider further features of the offence or the offender that warrant adjustment of the sentence within the range, including the aggravating and mitigating factors set out at step two. In this guideline, if the proposed sentence is a fine, having identified a provisional sentence within the range at step two the court is required to consider a further set of factors that may require a final adjustment to the sentence. Starting points and ranges apply to all offenders, whether they have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial. Credit for a guilty plea is taken into consideration only after the appropriate sentence has been identified. Information on fine bands and community orders is set out in the annex at pages 47 and 48.
(a) must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and
In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all organisations and offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after 1 February 2016, regardless of the date of the offence.
Section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that when sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010:
“Every court –
(b) must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”
For individuals, this guideline applies only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of youths are in the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guideline, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths.
Structure, ranges and starting points
For the purposes of section 125(3)–(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the guideline specifies offence ranges – the range of sentences appropriate for each type of offence. Within each offence, the Council has specified a number of categories which reflect varying degrees of seriousness. The offence range is split into category ranges – sentences appropriate for each level of seriousness. The Council has also identified a starting point within each category.
Starting points define the position within a category range from which to start calculating the provisional sentence. The court should consider further features of the offence or the offender that warrant adjustment of the sentence within the range, including the aggravating and mitigating factors set out at step two. In this guideline, if the proposed sentence is a fine, having identified a provisional sentence within the range at step two the court is required to consider a further set of factors that may require a final adjustment to the sentence. Starting points and ranges apply to all offenders, whether they have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial. Credit for a guilty plea is taken into consideration only after the appropriate sentence has been identified.
Information on fine bands and community orders is set out in the annex at pages 47 and 48.
Step 1 – Determining the offence category
The court should determine the offence category using only the culpability and harm factors in the lists below.
Where there are factors present in the case that fall in different categories of culpability, the court should balance these factors to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.
Where the offender intentionally breached, or flagrantly disregarded, the law
Actual foresight of, or wilful blindness to, risk of offending but risk nevertheless taken
Offence committed through act or omission which a person exercising reasonable care would not commit
Offence committed with little fault, for example, because:
- significant efforts were made to address the risk although they were inadequate on this occasion
- there was no warning/circumstance indicating a risk to health and safety
- failings were minor and occurred as an isolated incident
Health and safety offences are concerned with failures to manage risks to health and safety and do not require proof that the offence caused any actual harm. The offence is in creating a risk of harm.
1) Use the table below to identify an initial harm category based on the risk of harm created by the offence. The assessment of harm requires a consideration of both: – the seriousness of the harm risked (A, B or C) by the offender’s breach; and – the likelihood of that harm arising (high, medium or low).
|Seriousness of harm risked|
|High likelihood of harm||Harm category 1||Harm category 2||Harm category 3|
|Medium likelihood of harm||Harm category 2||Harm category 3||Harm category 4|
|Low likelihood of harm||Harm category 3||Harm category 4||Harm category 4 (start towards bottom of range)|
2) Next, the court must consider if the following factors apply. These two factors should be considered in the round in assigning the final harm category.
i) Whether the offence exposed a number of workers or members of the public to the risk of harm. The greater the number of people, the greater the risk of harm.
ii) Whether the offence was a significant cause of actual harm. Consider whether the offender’s breach was a significant cause* of actual harm and the extent to which other factors contributed to the harm caused. Actions of victims are unlikely to be considered contributory events for sentencing purposes. Offenders are required to protect workers or others who may be neglectful of their own safety in a way that is reasonably foreseeable.
If one or both of these factors apply the court must consider either moving up a harm category or substantially moving up within the category range at step two overleaf. If already in harm category 1 and wishing to move higher, move up from the starting point at step two overleaf. The court should not move up a harm category if actual harm was caused but to a lesser degree than the harm that was risked, as identified on the scale of seriousness above.
* A significant cause is one which more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the outcome. It does not have to be the sole or principal cause.
Step 2 – Starting point and category range
Having determined the category, the court should refer to the starting points below to reach a sentence within the category range. The court should then consider further adjustment within the category range for aggravating and mitigating features, set out at the end of Step Two.
In setting a fine, the court may conclude that the offender is able to pay any fine imposed unless the offender has supplied any financial information to the contrary. It is for the offender to disclose to the court such data relevant to his financial position as will enable it to assess what he can reasonably afford to pay. If necessary, the court may compel the disclosure of an individual offender’s financial circumstances pursuant to section 162 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the absence of such disclosure, or where the court is not satisfied that it has been given sufficient reliable information, the court will be entitled to draw reasonable inferences as to the offender’s means from evidence it has heard and from all the circumstances of the case which may include the inference that the offender can pay any fine.
Starting points and ranges
Where the range includes a potential sentence of custody, the court should consider the custody threshold as follows:
- has the custody threshold been passed?
- if so, is it unavoidable that a custodial sentence be imposed?
- if so, can that sentence be suspended?
Where the range includes a potential sentence of a community order, the court should consider the community order threshold as follows:
- has the community order threshold been passed?
Even where the community order threshold has been passed, a fine will normally be the most appropriate disposal where the offence was committed for economic benefit. Or, if wishing to remove economic benefit derived through the commission of the offence, consider combining a fine with a community order.
|Starting Point||Category Range|
|Very high culpability|
|Harm category 1||18 months’ custody||1 – 2 years’ custody|
|Harm category 2||1 year’s custody||26 weeks’ – 18 months’ custody|
|Harm category 3||26 weeks’ custody||Band F fine or high level community order – 1 years’ custody|
|Harm category 4||Band F fine||Band E fine – 26 weeks’ custody|
|Harm category 1||1 year’s custody||26 weeks’ – 18 months’ custody|
|Harm category 2||26 weeks’ custody||Band F fine or high level community order – 1 years’ custody|
|Harm category 3||Band F fine||Band E fine or medium level community order – 26 weeks’ custody|
|Harm category 4||Band E fine||Band D fine – Band E fine|
|Harm category 1||26 weeks’ custody||Band F fine or high level community order – 1 years’ custody|
|Harm category 2||Band F fine||Band E fine or medium level community order – 26 weeks’ custody|
|Harm category 3||Band E fine||Band D fine or low level community order – Band E fine|
|Harm category 4||Band D fine||Band C fine – Band D fine|
|Harm category 1||Band F fine||Band E fine or medium level community order – 26 weeks’ custody|
|Harm category 2||Band D fine||Band C fine – Band D fine|
|Harm category 3||Band C fine||Band B fine – Band C fine|
|Harm category 4||Band A fine||Conditional discharge – Band A fine|
|Fine Band A||50% of relevant weekly income||25 – 75% of relevant weekly income|
|Fine Band B||100% of relevant weekly income||75 – 125% of relevant weekly income|
|Fine Band C||150% of relevant weekly income||125 – 175% of relevant weekly income|
|Fine Band D||250% of relevant weekly income||200 – 300% of relevant weekly income|
|Fine Band E||400% of relevant weekly income||300 – 500% of relevant weekly income|
|Fine Band F||600% of relevant weekly income||500 – 700% of relevant weekly income|
The seriousness of the offence should be the initial factor in determining which requirements to include in a community order. Offence-specific guidelines refer to three sentencing levels within the community order band based on offence seriousness (low, medium and high). See below for non-exhaustive examples of requirements that might be appropriate in each.
At least one requirement MUST be imposed for the purpose of punishment and/or a fine imposed in addition to the community order unless there are exceptional circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender that would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so. For further information see the Imposition guideline.
A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence.
Offences only just cross community order threshold, where the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the offender’s record means that a discharge or fine is inappropriate
In general, only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary
Offences that obviously fall within the community order band
Offences only just fall below the custody threshold or the custody threshold is crossed but a community order is more appropriate in the circumstances
More intensive sentences which combine two or more requirements may be appropriate
Suitable requirements might include:
Suitable requirements might include:
Suitable requirements might include:
* If order does not contain a punitive requirement, suggested fine levels are indicated below:
BAND A FINE
BAND B FINE
BAND C FINE
The approach to the imposition of a custodial sentence should be as follows:
1) Has the custody threshold been passed?
- A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
- There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
- The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.
2) Is it unavoidable that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed?
- Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
- For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
3) What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence?
- In considering this the court must NOT consider any licence or post sentence supervision requirements which may subsequently be imposed upon the offender’s release.
4) Can the sentence be suspended?
- A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
The following factors should be weighed in considering whether it is possible to suspend the sentence:
Factors indicating that it would not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence
Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence
Offender presents a risk/danger to the public
Realistic prospect of rehabilitation
Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody
Strong personal mitigation
History of poor compliance with court orders
Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others
The imposition of a custodial sentence is both punishment and a deterrent. To ensure that the overall terms of the suspended sentence are commensurate with offence seriousness, care must be taken to ensure requirements imposed are not excessive. A court wishing to impose onerous or intensive requirements should reconsider whether a community sentence might be more appropriate.
Whenever the court reaches the provisional view that:
- the custody threshold has been passed; and, if so
- the length of imprisonment which represents the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence;
the court should obtain a pre-sentence report, whether verbal or written, unless the court considers a report to be unnecessary. Ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case.
Magistrates: Consult your legal adviser before deciding to sentence to custody without a pre-sentence report.
For further information and sentencing flowcharts see the Imposition guideline.
You will find below a non-exhaustive list of factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point. In particular, relevant recent convictions are likely to result in a substantial upward adjustment. In some cases, having considered these factors, it may be appropriate to move outside the identified category range.
Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors
- Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
- Offence committed whilst on bail
Other aggravating factors include:
- Cost-cutting at the expense of safety
- Deliberate concealment of illegal nature of activity
- Breach of any court order
- Obstruction of justice
- Poor health and safety record
- Falsification of documentation or licences
- Deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences in order to avoid scrutiny by authorities
- Targeting vulnerable victims
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
- No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
- Evidence of steps taken voluntarily to remedy problem
- High level of co-operation with the investigation, beyond that which will always be expected
- Good health and safety record
- Effective health and safety procedures in place
- Self-reporting, co-operation and acceptance of responsibility
- Good character and/or exemplary conduct
- Inappropriate degree of trust or responsibility
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the commission of the offence
- Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long term treatment
- Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
- Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
Step 3 – Review any financial element of the sentence
Where the sentence is or includes a fine, the court should ‘step back’ and, using the factors set out below, review whether the sentence as a whole meets the objectives of sentencing for these offences. The court may increase or reduce the proposed fine reached at step two, if necessary moving outside of the range.
General principles to follow in setting a fine
The court should finalise the appropriate level of fine in accordance with section 164 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the court must take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.
The level of fine should reflect the extent to which the offender fell below the required standard. The fine should meet, in a fair and proportionate way, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and the removal of gain derived through the commission of the offence; it should not be cheaper to offend than to take the appropriate precautions.
Review of the fine
Where the court proposes to impose a fine it should ‘step back’, review and, if necessary, adjust the initial fine reached at step two to ensure that it fulfils the general principles set out above.
Any quantifiable economic benefit derived from the offence, including through avoided costs or operating savings, should normally be added to the fine arrived at in step two. Where this is not readily available, the court may draw on information available from enforcing authorities and others about the general costs of operating within the law.
In finalising the sentence, the court should have regard to the following factors relating to the wider impacts of the fine on innocent third parties; such as (but not limited to):
- impact of the fine on offender’s ability to comply with the law;
- impact of the fine on employment of staff, service users, customers and local economy.
Step 4 – Consider any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution
The court should take into account sections 73 and 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
Step 5 – Reduction for guilty pleas
The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Guilty Plea guideline.
Step 6 – Compensation and ancillary orders
In all cases, the court must consider whether to make ancillary orders. These may include:
Disqualification of director
An offender may be disqualified from being a director of a company in accordance with section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The maximum period of disqualification is 15 years (Crown Court) or 5 years (magistrates’ court).
Under section 42(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the court may impose a remedial order in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment on the offender.
An offender ought by the time of sentencing to have remedied any specific failings involved in the offence and if not, will be deprived of significant mitigation.
The cost of compliance with such an order should not ordinarily be taken into account in fixing the fine; the order requires only what should already have been done.
Where the offence involves the acquisition or possession of an explosive article or substance, section 42(4) enables the court to order forfeiture of the explosive.
Where the offence has resulted in loss or damage, the court must consider whether to make a compensation order. The assessment of compensation in cases involving death or serious injury will usually be complex and will ordinarily be covered by insurance. In the great majority of cases the court should conclude that compensation should be dealt with in the civil courts, and should say that no order is made for that reason.
If compensation is awarded, priority should be given to the payment of compensation over payment of any other financial penalty where the means of the offender are limited.
Where the offender does not have sufficient means to pay the total financial penalty considered appropriate by the court, compensation and fine take priority over prosecution costs.
Step 7 – Totality principle
If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending behaviour in accordance with the Offences Taken into Consideration and Totality guideline.
Step 8 – Reasons
Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.
Step 9 – Consideration for time spent on bail
The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.